Daniel Gibson wrote: ... > > You can never be sure with patents, as someone else in another thread > already pointed out: it's virtually impossible to write a piece of > software that doesn't infringe patents.
Yes, it's like bugs: you can tell when you found one, but never know your software is free of it. (well, that is almost true) > Of course, the situation is worse with Java (as seen in Oracle suing > Google for using a Java-derivate in Android) and Mono (you never know if > Microsoft will tolerate this forever. Even if they promised not to sue for > current .net related patents, you never know about patents applying to > features in future versions of .net). > With D at least people still would have to find patents that are infringed > - and even then the case isn't as clear as with Java/mono, where it's > obvious that the Java/.net related patents are infringed. > > So yes, the point that D may cause less trouble than Java/.net can be > made, but you probably shouldn't claim that D doesn't infringe any > patents, because you can't possibly know (nobody can, there are just too > many software patents to check, even for big companies). > Technically that is right, but I find it a bit of an understatement because every non trival software project has potential issues. With .NET and Java you *know* you have patent issues, with D any potential patent issue is a tragic mistake that still has to be proven to exist. Those are not on the same scale, so I wouldn't use the term 'less trouble' You also have ownership to take into account, I would rather trust Walter Bright not using submarine patent traps than MS or Oracle :)
